Are humans and animals equal? Animal rights advocates
would say yes. Others would say that there are essential differences between
the two. What is the Christian stand? Does the Bible say anything on the
issue?

Christians, on the one hand, see the mystery and sanctity
of all life, originating as it does from God. On the other hand, they
are also conscious of the uniqueness of human life, made in the image
of God. This difference between human and animal life needs to be underscored
because animal-rights advocates believe that there is essentially no difference
between the two. In an interview with Harper's Magazine, Ingrid
Newkirk, a defender of animal rights, argued that animals also possess
those attributes that supposedly set humans apart from animals (such as
tool use and use of language): "None of this differentiates humans from
other animals. You cannot find a relevant attribute in human beings that
doesn't exist in animals as well."1 In
Newkirk's world, humans would have no more rights than animals. "They
would be just another animal in the pack."2

Without the Bible, we too would probably arrive at a
similar conclusion. So we turn to what the Scriptures say on the issue.

The use of "soul"

The Bible does use the word soul for both humans
and animals. Some understand from this usage that the Bible recognizes
no difference between humans and animals, but the problem disappears once
we understand what the word soul means in the Scriptures.

In the Old Testament, the word commonly translated soul
is nephesh. "One of the primary meanings of the word nephesh,
'soul,' is 'life,' as it is translated 119 times (Gen. 9:4, 5: Job 2:4,
6; etc.), or 'breath,' as it is rendered in Job 41:21.... In Gen. 1:20,
30 the brute creation is said to have a nephesh, 'life'."3

Another Hebrew word that deserves notice is ruach.
Consider its usage in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21: "For that which befalleth
the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the
one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that
a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. . . Who knoweth
the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that
goeth downward to the earth?" The word ruach is translated as
"breath" in verse 19 and as "the spirit" in verse 21. This passage is
discussing the fact that both humans and animals have the same principle
of life or breath, and that humans have no advantage over animals in terms
of what happens at death--the breath departs. The one thing that humans
have in common with animals is the principle of life and the principle
of death: "It is specifically stated that both animals and men have the
same 'breath,' ruach, and that at death the same thing happens
to both of them."4

The New Testament translates the Greek psuche
as "soul." "Psuche (plural, psuchai) is translated 40
times in the NT as 'life' or 'lives.'...It is rendered 58 times as 'soul'
or 'souls.'" 5

The word for soul (psuche) is thus used of
animal life as well as of human life. In Revelation 8:9 psuche
is translated "creatures," obviously referring to marine life. In Genesis
8:1 the Hebrew nephesh is similarly used of animals. So from
the use of the word soul to both humans and animals, the only
thing we can conclude is that they both have life. But we cannot conclude
that there are no differences between the human and the animal.

The
mode of creation

In fact, the Bible makes it clear that humans are definitely
different from animals. When God made Adam, He "formed man of the dust
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). Picture the great Creator as
He kneels down in the fresh dirt and molds and fashions the first human
"in His own image," breathing into him the breath of life. Animals were
not created that way: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so" (Genesis 1:24).

Further, speaking about the creation of human beings,
the psalmist says: "For thou hast made him [man] a little lower than the
angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour" (Psalms 8:5). No such
description can be found about animal creation.

Made in the image of God

Above all, the Bible affirms that human beings are made
in God's image: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."
(Genesis 1:26). The description is not applied to any other creature.
Ellen White suggests that a large part of this "image of God" refers to
human mind: "Man was formed in the likeness of God. His nature was in
harmony with the will of God. His mind was capable of comprehending divine
things."6

White identifies this difference as "a power akin to
that of the Creator--individuality, power to think and to do."7
Jack Provonsha elaborates on this distinguishing feature of humans over
animals: "Objects--things--can only be acted upon. Living things...can
also be acted upon, but they may...react.... Human beings share
with both nonliving things and living plants and animals their being acted
upon and reacting. But the truly human is unique in his or her ability
to act in ways that are surprising and unpredictable."8

One feature of human activity that sets humans apart
from animals is memory of the past and understanding of the future. Animals
do not have this capacity. Our memory of history coupled with a concern
for the future helps us to make decisions for today. We then modify our
behavior based on the feedback we receive as a consequence of our actions.
Many animals can modify behavior based on feedback but this is only a
short-term function and is not based on memory of the past or a sense
of the future.

A sense of right and wrong

Another aspect that distinguishes us from animals is
our sense of right and wrong. Except for humans whose brains have been
irreparably damaged, most people have some sense of what is right or wrong.
It may be a very twisted moral sense but nevertheless it is there, and
it governs the way an individual acts and reacts. Even the most intelligent
animals do not appear to have any moral principles. That is not to say
animals have no control over their behavior. They do have controls, but
these are instinctive rather than thought-out principles based on a moral
code.

Some may suggest that the great apes and other mammals
are as intelligent as humans, and that they can act in surprising and
unpredictable ways. Despite repeated attempts to show such intelligence
in animals, humans are light years ahead of all other animals in moral
reasoning, thinking, and doing. Furthermore, humans have a spiritual dimension
that animals lack. God commanded us to worship Him and even set apart
one day each week for that purpose. Animals apparently are incapable of
worship.

Some others would suggest that animals are even better
than humans. Animals did not plan and carry out wars that have marred
our civilization. This only shows how much we have fallen from our original
exalted state.

Another area in which the Bible distinguishes the human
from the animal is the former's stewardship of the latter. "And God said
unto them,...have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
of the air, and over every living creature that moveth upon the earth"
(Genesis 1:28).

The use of animals

The entry of sin brought in a sacrificial system, involving
the lives of innocent animals. God instructed Adam and Eve on the meaning
of sacrifice.9 In the concept that an
animal was to die for human sin, we see that human life is different from
animal life. But even in the sacrificial system, Satan introduced the
idea that humans and animals were no different, and instigated human sacrifice,
putting human life on the same level as animal life.

In regard to animal sacrifice, God gave Moses detailed
instructions on how these offerings should be carried out. No mention
is made of avoiding animal sacrifice (see Leviticus 1-4). The Old Testament
also has instruction on the use of animals as beasts of burden and as
food, on the one hand, and on the care of animals in good surroundings
and with gentleness.

Human
worth and animal care

In the teachings of Jesus there emerges the clear idea
that while we should care for animals, we should not forget that humans
are of higher worth: "What man shall there be among you, that shall have
one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not
lay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep?"
(Matthew 12:11, 12).

On another occasion Jesus said, "Are not two sparrows
sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without
your Father. . . ye are of more value than many sparrows" (Matthew 10:29,
31). This passage teaches two things. First, God watches over everything
He made, even the tiny sparrows. This means that we too have a responsibility
for protecting animals. We should protect them from suffering and their
habitat from destruction. If God is watching a baby loon on Moss Lake
in the Adirondack Mountains, I should be, too. If God is concerned about
the quality of the water and the death of fish in the Chesapeake Bay,
I should be, too.

Jesus has given "special direction in regard to the
performance of acts of mercy toward man and beast. . . . While the law
of God requires supreme love to God and impartial love to our neighbors,
its far-reaching requirements also take in the dumb creatures that cannot
express in words their wants or sufferings."10

Second, humans are, in a way that may be only partially
definable, "above" or "better" than animals. If it comes to a choice between
an animal and a human, we should always vote for the human. Ellen White
seems to support what might be called an animal-use/animal-welfare view:
"He who created man made the lower animals also, and 'his tender mercies
are over all his works.' [Psalms 145:9]. The animals were created to serve
man, but he has no right to cause them pain by harsh treatment or cruel
exaction."11

Implications for the Christian

Any discussion of animal use and welfare must make us
sensitive to a dichotomy: God has an orderly universe but we live in a
fallen world. In God's perfect universe, nothing would die. Death in our
sinful part of that universe was a result of sin. In our world death is
a reality. Living in this sinful world, Christians attempt to apply principles
of the coming kingdom. In practical terms, this implies that a follower
of Jesus will be kind to animals while using them to benefit humanity.
We should always foster animal welfare and good care. This is one of the
reasons why many Adventists tend toward a vegetarian diet.

As we noted above, God gave us stewardship of animals.
This implies, among other things, that we will have to make decisions
about animals--in some cases, which ones live and which ones die. For
example, a person may get malaria, caused by a microscopic protozoa. A
human makes the decision to kill the protozoa and thus save the person's
life. Rats carry fleas which in turn carry causative agents of plague.
We make the decision to destroy the rats and save people's lives.

But when you throw out the Bible, the principle of stewardship
goes with it. Then there is no control. If all life is equal, no one is
in charge and chaos reigns.

This creates problems even for animal-rights advocates.
I recently saw a video that advocated absolutely no use of animals by
humans. It showed an animal farm where animals that have been rescued
from slaughter are being allowed to live their lives in peace and harmony.
The only problem is, What do you feed them? Of course the cows, sheep,
and pigs can eat plant food. (So far I haven't heard of any plant rights
groups.) But what about the dogs they rescue from "cruel" research laboratories?
Dogs are carnivores--meat eaters. Are you going to convince them to eat
plants? No doubt there are people who feed their dogs only a vegetarian
diet, but that's not what dogs (or lions) eat naturally. Animal-rights
advocates try to make nature sound peaceful and happy, but any biologist
knows that is a false picture.

We do live in a sinful world, one where an animal's
"freedom" may impinge on my health or survival. Ellen White advocated
the killing of pests. "God has given no man the message, Kill not ant
or flea or moth. Troublesome and harmful insects and reptiles we must
guard against and destroy, to preserve ourselves and our possessions from
harm."12

Behind human-animal equivalency

We have seen that the Bible places humans above animals.
What, then, is the origin of the concept that all life is equal? The answer
goes back to the father of all lies.

Think for a moment of the idea of organic evolution--that
life originated as a result of unknown processes taking place in a "soup"
of chemicals. The first living cell supposedly gave rise to other cells,
which, over much time and many cell generations, eventually developed
into all other forms of life on this planet. Humans, then, represent nothing
more than the latest step in a long evolutionary development from the
first living cell. Therefore, if you accept the organic evolutionary theory
of the origin of living things, you will accept that all life is basically
the same. The evolutionist sees only a quantitative difference--not a
qualitative difference--between humans and other animals. Followed to
its logical conclusion, this leads one to believe that a human life is
no more valuable than a mosquito's.

Of course, one may not be ready to go that far. Animal-rights
advocates don't usually try to stop people from killing mosquitoes. But
it is important to see where these ideas lead. Animal-rights advocates
want all human use of animals stopped--whether in medical research, as
pets (unless they are treated exactly as members of the family), as food,
or for pleasure (as in circuses).

The question, then, is: On what do we base value? On
intelligence? On performance? Or on contribution to society? For the Christian,
the answer is clear: on the basis of our creation in the image of God
and our re-creation through Jesus Christ. No animal was made in God's
image, and no animal can ever experience the spiritual new birth.

Practical applications

Elsewhere I have discussed animal use in research and
guidelines that ought to govern such use.13
But can doing research on animals ever be considered compatible with the
Christian duty to treat all life with respect? Our discussion thus far
leads me to say yes--if the research is potentially beneficial to humanity
and is done with the highest regard for life.

Christine Jackson (see box, p.6) suggests that money
should be spent on disease treatment rather than on research. This is
like offering a Band-AidTM to a child who is playing with a knife. Treatment
is a temporary "solution" when we are dealing with a fatal disease like
AIDS. Research has potential to find a cure or a vaccine. As Ronald G.
Calhoun points out (see box, p.7), tremendous strides have been made against
many human diseases by animal research. If researchers in years past had
taken the Band-AidTM approach, our life expectancy today would be about
40 years.

Where does all this leave us, as Christians? On the
solid biblical ground that humans and animals are not the same. They are
significantly different in worth, dignity, and destiny. While we are given
dominion and authority over the animal kingdom, our stewardship should
enable us to treat animals with kindness and care, even as we use them
in legitimate ways.

David Ekkens (Ph.D., Loma Linda University) has taught
Biology in Africa and the United States. He currently teaches and conducts
research at Southern College of Seventh-day Adventists, in Collegedale,
Tennessee, U.S.A.